- Jacob D. Kathman, Civil War Diffusion and Regional Motivations for Intervention
- Jeannie Annan, Christopher Blattman, Dyan Mazurana, & Khristopher Carlson, Civil War, Reintegration, and Gender in Northern Uganda
- Nils W. Metternich, Expecting Elections: Interventions, Ethnic Support, and the Duration of Civil Wars
- Thomas Zeitzoff, Using Social Media to Measure Conflict Dynamics: An Application to the 2008–2009 Gaza Conflict
- Andreas Flache & Michael W. Macy, Local Convergence and Global Diversity: From Interpersonal to Social Influence
- Dustin H. Tingley & Barbara F. Walter, Can Cheap Talk Deter?: An Experimental Analysis
- Emizet F. Kisangani & Jeffrey Pickering, Democratic Accountability and Diversionary Force: Regime Types and the Use of Benevolent and Hostile Military Force
- Srividya Jandhyala, Witold J. Henisz, & Edward D. Mansfield, Three Waves of BITs: The Global Diffusion of Foreign Investment Policy
Saturday, December 24, 2011
Friday, December 23, 2011
- Robert P. Barnidge, The 2008 United States-India Nuclear Co-operation Agreement and the Work of the International Law Commission on International Liability for Injurious Consequences Arising Out of Acts not Prohibited by International Law
- Prabhash Ranjan, Non-Precluded Measures in Indian International Investment Agreements and India's Regulatory Power as a Host Nation
- Thang Nguyen Dang, Fisheries Co-operation in the South China Sea and the (Ir)relevance of the Sovereignty Question
- Erik Franckx & Marco Benatar, Dots and Lines in the South China Sea: Insights from the Law of Map Evidence
- Mark D. Kielsgard, The Legality Principle in Sentencing at the ECCC: Making Up Law as It Goes Along?
- Andreas Schloenhardt, Fighting Organized Crime in the Asia Pacific Region: New Weapons, Lost Wars
- Dinara Ziganshina, International Water Law in Central Asia: The Nature of Substantive Norms and what Flows from It
Thursday, December 22, 2011
- JHHW, Nino – In His Own Words; In this Issue; The Last Page and Roaming Charges
- Jaye Ellis, General Principles and Comparative Law
- Thilo Rensmann, Munich Alumni and the Evolution of International Human Rights Law
- Anastasios Gourgourinis, General/Particular International Law and Primary/Secondary Rules: Unitary Terminology of a Fragmented System
- Daphné Richemond-Barak, Regulating War: A Taxonomy in Global Administrative Law
- Critical Review of International Jurisprudence
- Sonia Morano-Foadi & Stelios Andreadakis, The Convergence of the European Legal System in the Treatment of Third Country Nationals in Europe: The ECJ and ECtHR Jurisprudence
- Critical Review of International Governance
- Abigail C. Deshman, Horizontal Review between International Organizations: Why, How, and Who Cares about Corporate Regulatory Capture
- Roaming Charges Places of Worship: Piazza Duomo Milano
- EJIL: Debate!
- Roda Mushkat, The Dynamics of International Legal Regime Formation: The Sino-British Joint Declaration on the Question of Hong Kong Revisited
- Kevin Y. L. Tan, The Dynamics of International Legal Regime Formation: The Sino-British Joint Declaration on the Question of Hong Kong Revisited: A Reply to Roda Mushkat
- Roda Mushkat, The Dynamics of International Legal Regime Formation: The Sino-British Joint Declaration on the Question of Hong Kong Revisited: A Rejoinder to Kevin Tan
- Bas Schotel, Doing Justice to the Political. The International Criminal Court in Uganda and Sudan: A Reply to Sarah Nouwen and Wouter Werner
- Sarah M. H. Nouwen & Wouter G. Werner Doing Justice to the Political: The International Criminal Court in Uganda and Sudan: A Rejoinder to Bas Schotel
- Philip Allott, On First Understanding Plato’s Republic
Wednesday, December 21, 2011
Singh: Non-Proliferation Law & Countermeasures: Their Function and Role in Determining the Status of a Special Regime
This paper examines the rhetoric of fragmentation, specifically the nuanced notion of ‘special regimes’ (as opposed to self-contained), in the context of non-proliferation law and rules relating to countermeasures. The general question which is asked and answered is: what is the extent to which non-proliferation law, and the special obligations and institutional mechanisms created by the governing treaties, enables, limits or otherwise modifies the right to resort to countermeasures under general international law? An extension of the question that Rapporteur Arangio-Ruiz asked in the ILC in 1992, this piece reviews the large of non-proliferation rules to answer three sub-questions: (a) who has standing to take countermeasures in relation to non-proliferation obligations; (b) when can a state take recourse to countermeasures under general international law, given the existence and content of special non-proliferation rules and institutional mechanisms; and (c) what countermeasures may a state take, given the nature of the regime, its practicalities and the nature of some of its obligations.
The finding of this paper is that non-proliferation law possesses distinct legal characteristics and distinct legal rules both of which impact, varyingly, on the resort to countermeasures in this area of law. First, the paper critiques the ILC’s direct and overly simplistic importation of the notion of ‘interdependent obligations’ from its work on the law of treaties, to its work on state responsibility, and specifically Article 42(b)(ii) of the ILC Articles on State Responsibility. This has led to a conflated understanding of which non-proliferation obligations, upon breach, enable a decentralized, third-state party, response in the form of countermeasures. The paper concludes, that under a strict reading of doctrine, only a very few substantive non-proliferation obligations, and certainly not the majority let alone the procedural and peaceful use obligations, would qualify as interdependent obligations. Accordingly, whilst non-proliferation law is traditionally considered susceptible to decentralized responses (as ample practice demonstrates), this is not consistent with a reading of the law. Second, the paper applies the Air Services Arbitration test to whether the existence of extensive institutional frameworks should condition the resort to countermeasures. It concludes that in the case of the majority of non-proliferation treaties, such frameworks and not mandatory pre-requisites. It further identifies specific obligations contained in the CWC and CTBT that govern the taking of collective countermeasures in the general interest. Finally, this section identifies specific non-proliferation rules which limit the taking of countermeasures that emerge out of the WTO regime and UN Security Council Resolution 1929 (2010). Third, and finally, the paper concludes that what countermeasures may be taken may be curtailed by the nature of certain non-proliferation obligations, whilst the need to liberalize current international legal doctrine may emerge from the question of urgent countermeasures in the area of non-proliferation law.
In short, the paper concludes, that despite evidence of special characteristics and special rules governing countermeasures, non-proliferation law cannot be considered a special regime. The paper does however seek to provide a pragmatic view of the way in which countermeasures may be taken, in accordance with the law, in the diverse area of non-proliferation law.
The journal has issued a call for submissions for its inaugural and posterior issues. Here's the call:
Call for Submissions for the Inaugural and Posterior Issues
The Editorial Board of the Cambridge Journal of International and Comparative Law (CJICL), an open access, double-blind peer review journal based at the University of Cambridge, is pleased to announce the CJICL are now accepting submissions for both the inaugural and posterior issues.
The Board invites long articles, short articles, case notes and book review submissions that broadly engage with the themes of public and private international and comparative law, as well as EU and transnational law. The CJICL is particularly interested in work that examines the intersection of different legal regimes – domestic, regional, transnational, international – as well as cutting edge international legal scholarship.
All submissions will be double-blind peer reviewed before a final decision on publication is taken. All long articles and some short articles will be sent to our Academic Review Board, which consist of a distinguished international and comparative law scholars and practitioners. A full list can be viewed on our website www.cjicl.org.uk. All other articles, case notes and book reviews will be double-blind peer reviewed by our Editorial Board.
The closing date for submissions is the 1 February 2012. Successful authors will be notified in April 2012 as to whether they will be published in one of our two substantive issues for the year 2011-12. Manuscripts must be submitted via our website – click on ‘Submissions’ at www.cjicl.org.uk - by the closing date. Please see below for further information.
In addition to a call for submissions for the Journal, the Editorial Board would like to invite authors to submit c. 1000 word commentaries for our new online blog (available at www.cjicl.org.uk), by e-mailing them to: email@example.com with your name, institution and submission in a separate word (.doc) or richtext (.rtf) document.
Andrew Sanger and Rumiana Yotova
Editors in Chief of the Cambridge Journal of International and Comparative Law
Further Submission Information
The Journal accepts the following types of manuscript:
1. Long Articles between 6,000 and 10,000 words but not exceeding 12,000 words including footnotes;
2. Short Articles not exceeding 6,000 words including footnotes;
3. Case Notes including substantive analysis should be approximately 3000 words including footnotes (comparative methodologies, if applicable, are encouraged); and
4. Book Reviews not exceeding 2500 words including footnotes.
All copy must be submitted in Word (.doc) or Richtext (.rtf) format and must conform to our style guidelines, which are available on the submissions section of our website. The number of words in the text and (separately if possible) the footnotes should be stated.
Please ensure that your manuscript does not contain any reference to your personal or professional identity.
For up to date information, please see our website
Tuesday, December 20, 2011
Monday, December 19, 2011
- Peter Hilpold, Das Kosovo-Gutachten vom 22. Juli 2010: historische, politische und rechtliche Voraussetzungen
- Christian Tomuschat, Die Anerkennung von Neustaaten – Die vorzeitige Anerkennung
- Peter Hilpold, Die Sezession im Völkerrecht – Erfordert das Kosovo-Gutachten des IGH eine Neubewertung dieses Instituts?
- Stefan Oeter, Sezession, territoriale Integrität und die Rolle des Sicherheitsrates
- Matthias Niedobitek, Die OSZE und der Kosovo
- Isabel Lirola Delgado, The European Union and Kosovo in the Light of the Territorial Issue
- Michael Bothe, Grenzziehung als Instrument der Friedenssicherung – Von Palästina zum Kosovo und zurück
- Andrea Gioia, Decisions of the UN Security Council of Indefinite Duration: How to Define the Limits of Their Validity
- Helmut Philipp Aust, The Kosovo Opinion and Issues of International Responsibility
- Andrea Gattini, “You Say You´ll Change the Constitution” – The ICJ and Non–state Entities in the Kosovo Advisory Opinion
- Anne Peters, Das Kosovo-Gutachten und globaler Konstitutionalismus
- Gerhard Hafner & Nadia Kalb, Struktur und Inhalt der Stellungnahmen von Österreichs im IGH-Gutachtenverfahren zu Kosovo
Sunday, December 18, 2011
- Hugh Thirlway, The Law and Procedure of the International Court of Justice 1960–1989 - PREFACE - Chapter I: Jurisdiction in Contentious Cases - Chapter II: Jurisdiction and Its Exercise in Advisory Proceedings: SUPPLEMENT, 2010: PARTS NINE AND TEN
- Douglas Guilfoyle, The Mavi Marmara Incident and Blockade in Armed Conflict
- Ilias Bantekas, The Emergence of the Intergovernmental Trust in International Law
- Ben Juratowitch, Diplomatic Protection of Shareholders